As the summer winds down and the kids return to school, local politicians and wannabes will be putting on their galoshes and walking shoes, readying themselves to knock on doors, shake hands and kiss babies, all in the name of getting elected on October 25.

Over the past term in Hamilton, we've seen some pretty interesting governance practices and behaviours: From a 'stolen' tape to a thrown pen during a council meeting; from 'threats of physical violence' to using one's position to try to avoid a ticket; from one too many split vote decisions to an economy that fell into the tank; from spending oodles of cash on questionable consultant's reports to deferring decisions to the next council term.

No matter how you slice it, the next term is not going to be an easy one for those who are elected, as revenues are expected to be down with demand up, as a result of the sluggish economy.

All that aside, here is a list of issues that candidates for (re-)election should be prepared to have a position on how they feel the City should go:

Area Rating

This inefficient, ten-year-old levy system (the only one in North America) has been broken from the get-go. Term after term, Council has deferred the problem to the next year, and we are getting closer to having to make a decision.

Even though a 'citizen's forum' has been formed to review the area rating formula, any recommendation to Council in November will be just that: a recommendation. Council is not obligated to honour the recommendation, or make any decision to change.

This divisive issue needs to be put to rest once and for all. When speaking to a candidate for Council, ask them what their position is; if they dodge a response with a 'wait and see' - call them out, as the facts and options have been on the table for years.

Waste Management

This could be one of the sleeper issues of the election. Hamilton's curbside recycling contract is up in 2013, which means that a decision on a new contract is made in 2012, and continuing to work backwards, means that the RFP goes out in 2011.

Faced with costing concerns, the City may be forced to look at converting our existing two-stream recycling program (containers in one blue box; paper and fibre in the other), to a single-stream recycling program (everything is in one box or co-mingled).

There is undisputed evidence shows that, while initial costs of single-stream versus two-stream may be less, the amount of contamination increases dramatically - meaning more recyclable materials will end up in a landfill. Figures show that a contamination rate in two-stream recycling is less than 2%, whereas single-stream contamination rates are as high as 13%.

The problem here is that it won't be Hamilton's landfill, it will be someone else's. So the question is: What's more important, saving money or protecting the environment?

Transit

Should Hamilton's transit operation operate outside of Council influence? It's a question worth asking, as there has been little to no significant change to the overall operation of the HSR since amalgamation.

Routing decisions are based on Councillor influence, and while a study was completed on the operation last year, no changes have been forthcoming.

Viewed as a 'social' service by many due to its 'public transit' moniker, even the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce recognized that in order for transit use to increase, it needs to be operated by an arms-length transit commission and be referred to as 'mass transit'.

The desire to change is there from the private sector, but where is the desire from our public representatives?

Business Development (aka - Economic Development)

As Hamilton's tax pool continues to shift toward higher dependency on residential property rates due to the exodus of various businesses and manufacturers, is Hamilton doing enough to attract businesses to our glorious city?

The continuing sprawl of retail big-box development only further entrenches Hamilton into a 'bedroom' community status. Absent of significant manufacturing facilities that once graced our landscape, we must at some point in the very near future decide our direction.

Continuing at our pace of piecemeal development only exasperates urban/rural planners who see growing plots of mixed-use lands.

Community Councils

I'm not speaking of the Ancaster or Dundas Community Councils, or Ward meetings, or any other variation thereof: I'm speaking of Community Councils as they were intended when Bill C-130 came into force in 2007.

At the time, Council did a nicety by forming a Community Council Task Force to look at how Hamilton could benefit from full-fledged Community Councils like the ones Sudbury, Winnipeg, and Toronto use - but their weak-kneed recommendation was promptly placed on a shelf somewhere.

Community Councils as they are intended to be used can offer effective decision-making processes at the grassroots level. There are only three things a Community Council cannot make a decision on: Staffing issues, taxes, and the Official Plan.

While it is not recommended to strike fifteen Community Councils (which is one of the recommendations made by the Task Force), combining Wards (i.e. 6, 7,& 8 on the Mountain) into one Community Council can be quite effective in managing concerns within said communities.

Corporate Operations, Part I

Do we have the right people in the right positions within the City of Hamilton? Do we have the right number of people?

We've seen multiple changes in the City Manager's seat since we became a bigger City and subsequent changes in middle-management positions. The Director of Transit's position was effectively downgraded, with Don Hull now reporting to a Senior Director instead of the City Manager.

Someone once asked: "How many City managers (senior staff positions) live in Hamilton?" It's a fair question, as one has to wonder the level of commitment one has to a job in one town, when they live in another. The decisions they make should impact their home as well, and they need to be comfortable with those decisions.

Corporate Operations, Part II

With the pending effects of the economic downturn, demand for services will no doubt increase while revenue decreases. What plans are in place to manage the existing programs and services that will ultimately need to be restructured or eliminated as a result of this imbalance?

Without proper planning, rash decisions are made, and the resulting impact generates anger from the community at large.

Recognizing that a politician cannot execute some of the above points, they can still provide direction and guidance. As such, they need to have an opinion or at least an acknowledgment of what lies ahead as they enter the election race.

As our elected representatives, they will have an obligation to their constituents to make sure that the best possible plans are being supported. Far too many times, decisions are made based on what's appropriate for a single area, versus the benefit of the City as a whole.

Dan Rodrigues was born and raised in London, Ontario, where he was an active community member in East London. He moved to Hamilton in late 1996, residing on the East Mountain. He has been married for 27 years, with a son who works with adults with physical and mental disabilities, and a daughter completing her degree in Chemistry at Western University this coming year. He is an active community volunteer, sitting on a number of committees and Boards, as well as coaching soccer. His professional life includes food and beverage industry sales and consulting, building industry sales, human resources consulting, and transportation consulting. Dan's diverse skills inventory allows for fuller discussion and better understanding of individual and community concerns. Currently, Dan is campaigning to be the Ward Six Councillor.

Hi Andrea,
And, there lies the crux of the issue with Municipal politics: which is more important to the voter - the issues of the City as a whole? Or, issues that effect the ward in which the voter lives?

We complain that our City operates with 15-Mayors of their own fiefdom, which contributes to the divisive Council chambers we see in operation today. But, they do so because we ask them to look after what matters first in their Ward. I've sat in a Councillor's office and listened as they told me that they take care of their Ward first; that they won't work with the City because getting re-elected was what was the important thing.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how well a particular Ward manages, if the rest of the City is in dire straits. A City which has it's house in order, has sound policies and practices throughout, and manages in a cohesive environment will go further in minimizing Ward concerns.

As an example: A Ward should not be entrenched in a battle to maintain graffiti-free properties, if the City as a whole had a policy and practice which was executed across the board. Instead, we have one Ward on one side of the City working independantly of the rest of the City to battle vandalism, while another Ward on the opposite side is attempting to do the same thing. Two Wards working towards a common goal, while failing to communicate with each other. Had the City utilized a collaborative approach and execution, not only would one or two Wards resolve a concern...the City as a whole would benefit.

At the end of the day, my property taxes don't go to just my Ward...they go to the entire City, and I want to make sure that money is spent wisely.

Thank you! That was an excellent assessment of the current problems facing the GHA.

I wonder though, if much of this is caused by simply egos running amok?

"Fiefdoms" is exactly right, & who wants to give up being Lord of the Manor? Not many.

How do we attract business to the GHA? Well, we could get effective city government for a start. We could stop throwing up multiple levels of hurdles. We could get rules, rather than 'guidelines' that change willy nilly from one fiefdom to another. We could also stop pretending that all places in the GHA are exactly the same. That might seem like a contradiction, but it isn't.
The only situations that City council seems to want to effect 'uniformity' are ones that: A) are wrong in that conclusion to start with, & B) Only seem to effect individual taxpayers & not the whole system. Silly rules that serve no real purpose except putting forth the opinions of a legislator & do nothing except make people cynical.

For example, there is no effective recycling system for business' downtown, where you have to assume most of the garbage is created. Who is responsible for recycling in Hamilton? Homeowners. Exclusively.
I agree that everyone should do their part & recycle, but you also have to ask who is generating the most garbage. Why are containers of toxic waste sitting around for years? Why are clean up orders ignored for years? Why can companies dump everything from base metals, solvents, celery stalks, & luncheon meat in a single dumpster? But it o.k., because "They pay for the dumpster service."?

(While the rest of us spend an hour or more every week scrubbing out those cans, rinsing those bottles, sorting the paper from the cardboard boxes, & cutting them up, cutting & bundling tree branches to uniform length & applying Polysporin & band-aids as needed.)

But if we changed things, wouldn't it impinge on the power of individuals in Council? Yup, & they wouldn't like it one bit.

"Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how well a particular Ward manages, if the rest of the City is in dire straits. A City which has it's house in order, has sound policies and practices throughout, and manages in a cohesive environment will go further in minimizing Ward concerns."

This is a huge problem in the city of Hamilton which has been well demonstrated by letters to the editor (over the stadium issue) from many who have expressed not only a lack of intereest in what happens in the core of the city, but even animosity towards th idea of spending any money to revitalize downtown. Without a thriving center, of which we can all be proud, and in which every one of us in encouraged to spend productive and enjoyable time, we are not a city.